tv [untitled] May 27, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PDT
if you allow me to cook, it would be worse. if we go in that direction we have to be careful how we staff that up and so forth. i think superintendent, of course, you want to make a last comment on this? >> yeah. that was the whole purpose of this. i remember when the food bank folks came. i remember that conversation. the conversation was to let's use this as -- to start a really good discussion. a discussion, and that's why those recommendations are very useful. yeah, a little more work probably needs to be done. it's easy to say have kitchens out there but what is their rate of production and return on the investment you're going to make and can they actually deliver? so i think the next step would be to figure out, what could those do if we had those? second, is it, would it be
better to have a central facility and what would the cost be? i think that when we have these initial discussions, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, but the discussion was to see, well if we're going to do this, maybe we do have to think a little bit outside the box, possibly go out to the voters and have something done like this. and that was the whole purpose of this original discussion a little over a year ago now, to say, and that's why we brought you in as a consultant, to say, what are thin, we want to see the good, the bad and the ugly in our system and want to also think about, ok, we've come a long way in five years, just, you know, just the processes. it's hard to believe, i know from a -- when a consultant sees where we are, they're thinking where we could be. they see it as a relative term to see other places. and i've worked in other police, i know places that are -- that is where they are actually make
money on food services, believe it or not but they have some advantages that we don't have here. ok. such as space. but they ended up after analysis, extensive years of analysis, they decided the most cost effective way was to create a centralized kitchen and that worked. as a result, it really, they were able to curtail costs and the product was really good. i think that when we look at this, this is just, i do think a plan, a very strategic plan needs to be developed from this, from what we've done here, that takes it to the next level. and then bring back to the board and have a discussion to say, ok, this is what it would cost. and based on, this is what it would cost to do kitchens, out in the field or this is what it would cost to do a joint facility with a different district or different -- doesn't
even have to be a district, it could be something else as well. you know. could be a college, could be, you know, there's a lot of other options or a central facility. those are at least three options and maybe there's more. and have a breakdown of a cost of whether the feasibility of what those three would be. then i think that then make a decision if that's something that we want to do because let's be real. under the existing money, where we're at, we're not going to be table fund that. i think we're living in a make believe word if we're going to go out there and do that in this environment, especially after we saw how bad our budget is. wasn't his fault. don't shoot the messenger. but we do have to talk about, ok, if this is something worthwhile that really is not, it's not only going to benefit the children of san francisco, because that it definitely will but it'll have benefits for everybody, including families and nerve san francisco so i
think it's something that, you know, maybe a discussion could be, as we pursue peef in the future. maybe this becomes another part of talking about well this is what it would cost to build a facility. most of these costs would be the first-time cost. that's your hardest cost. once you get there, it's a little bit different. but i do think this should be the spring board for a much bigger, more thorough discussion of analyzing the recommendations to see what is real because i appreciate ed giving us what you've done and that's great. that tells us where we kind of are right now. but in the next five years, where are we going to be? thing inevitably the recommendations that are made there, i do think that they carry a lot of merit. and we do need to explore those. otherwise we won't get to the level where i think we, in the long run, where this community,
i think, would want us to be there to have food that really does excite kids. having said that, i've eaten in a lot of calf tier yaos, i don't mind the -- cafeterias, i don't mind the food. i've been in elementary, middle school, every school i've been to, i'll probably get mail now but when you ask the students, i ask them what they like about going to middle school, especially the sixth graders, the first thing they tell you is they like the food. they like lunch. i guess it's all -- comparability. relative to what you've had, i guess. since there are more choices there compared to elementary, they seem to like that. but i do think that we're headed in the right direction. this is a good start. but we have a long ways to go. thank you an thanks to the consultant and everybody, the food bank folks, thank you, and your staff, thank you. >> thank you.
>> thank you. >> on p, consent calendar resolutionings, severed for board discussion and immediate action. k-10. commissioner norton. >> that was me. >> my question, could you tell me if you could break this down fers of all, i mean, sort of what this is and kind of why we have a need for recruiting given the number of layoff notices we put out. >> sure. we've been partners with t.f.a. since 2008 as you know. the original commitment was to bring 50 teachers a year to this
district. since i've been here, we've lowered that number significantly. to focus on hiring teachers in high-need areas, in hard to fill subjects and hard to staff schools. this doesn't affect layoffs at all. they're either skipped subjects or places where it's hard to find people to hire and put them back in place. right now, there are 14, as opposed to the 50 that we originally signed on to do five years ago, there are 14 first-year and 16 second-year f.t. -- t.f.a. teachers in the district and then we have alums in the district, we have 62 staff members who are alums of the program, of which 36 are teachers, nine are administrators in our district. they're not necessarily ones who
started out in this program but they started out in t.f.a. and different schools throughout the country. one of -- there are actually two -- >> i thought you said we had 60 alums. >> i amongst the 62 staff member whors alums of t.f.a., 36 of them are teachers in our district. and nine of them are administrators in our district. we have others, for example, nancy who just sat here is. >> by scradmrtors you mean site administrators. >> site administerors. i'm sorry. i misspoke. there are two k resos in the book tonight, the first one is
an amendment to deduct $60,000 for 20 -2013 from the original five-year k resolution. and the reason for that is that the original m.o.u. and the k resolution didn't -- the m.o.u. did not allow for that last year. so we had to do some housekeeping in order to redirect that money. part of that -- and the k resolution that you pulled is for $51,000. so we're amending to deduct $60,000 and then bring in a new k resolution which would pay for the second year which we need to pay for the second year of the last cohort that we had. and then what we would like to
do is add 10 t.f.a.'s a new cord, it would be an actual fifth cohort, or a sixth year but we would add 10 people to it. so what the -- what we would end up doing with the 10 new, there would be 14 t.f.a. teachers we need to pay for in their second year that would have been paid for out of the moneys we had in the k 58 resolution we need to correct. >> i want to make sure i'm following, it's a little convoluted. the $60,000 that is the credit would have paid -- would have paid for the 14 -- the coaching for the 14. >> that's what that money was -- that's what it was there for though we've used considerably less money every year than was originally planned for. so we've cut this program way back which i'll get to in just a
second. so i want to -- what i want to do is clarify a couple of things. teachers we were requested to breng through t.f.a. are -- don't impact the layoffs, as i said before. they're in skipped areas and in hard to fill subjects. the second thing the original contract with -- >> so special ed, math, science, foreign language. >> hard to fill subjects. >> i'm presuming we usually have a need every year. >> we do. in fact, of -- vlade no one off in those subjects, so there's no one to return to those subjects. these teachers are university credential interns that are highly qualified under nclb. the original contract with
t.f.a. five years ago was $480,000 for five years. over that time that we've been here, we've reduced that to $312,000. the funds that we're requesting, the next thing is, the costs, generally speaking, other districts pay $2,000 a year for their teachers. we negotiated $1 rblings 500 a year for our teachers. the money doesn't go to the teachers. their salaries are the same as any other intern teacher in the district. the $1,500 goes to the nonprofit t.f.a. and t.f.a. reports that they actually spend $40,000 per teacher in support, recruiting, support, so on and so forth for the teachers. they ask us to pay them $1,500 a year for those teachers which is what we pay.
the next thing that come ops t.f.a. is retention. it's true. we hire these teachers for two years and the reality is that their retention in the second year is higher, 86%, versus 72% of our new teachers in the district. now in the third and fourth year they drop off precipitously, which is expected in that they come here to work for us for two years and then they go in and do other things. so in the fourth year it's 26% retention for t.f.a. teachers. versus 47% for the teachers that are other teachers in the
district that we hire. >> 26% versus 47% in the fourth year, correct? >> yes. and -- which is no surprise. it's the design of the program. the department has recently undertaken a study to look at the results from these teachers. we've looked at their effectiveness in the classroom, in improving their achievement. her analysis found that math and language arts students taught by t.f.a. students out-performed teachers taught by other new teachers at all school levels. other new teachers. the results in middle school
math, the -- not only new teachers but all the veteran teachers in the district. i don't want large numbers of t.f.a. teachers in the district, we don't want large you were ins of them because of the -- in large part because of the retention of them. but in -- but we think that they're value added to the district in smaller numbers. so i'm asking you to approve this. >> any other questions? commissioner? >> i have to tell you my main objection to this is the language in the summary. because i'm actually a, first of all, with all due respect to teach for america teachers and all people who go into teaching, even if temporary, i have the
highest respect for them and the work they co-but i don't think they're our nation's most promising future leaders. i think that's a value judgment. it's one that comes from the program. not from us. and is not my -- not a policy statement that i care to support. >> noted. >> i'd like to strike it. and in addition to that, i -- here's my problem. which is by the way, that's -- that language is an integral part of this. everything i know about teach for america, there are many highly capable people who have been in it. their retention, you know, it's not a lifetime commitment to teaching, as teachers have. but -- so i -- and it is part of the, you know, what has been
characterized by some as the kind of corporate reformer movement and it is in my view, at its core, it's anti-teacher. it's anti-professional. it's anti--- this is something that undervalues the commitment of people who actually think of teaching as a profession. so i have supported these things other the years reluctantly back and forth. but i don't think i want to support it anymore. i think the message that we, you know, i guess i -- just like i sort of had enough of this. and the language particularly, the rhetoric is offensive to me.
>> could you provide some explanation, to understand the two k resolutions how they're connected so all that information that you gave us in the last 10 minutes -- >> i'm happy to do that. >> thank you. >> so i also support commissioner wynn striking the first paragraph and just focusing on what the resolution is about. and then i guess my question is about timing. because we have, you know, 200 and -- what's the number of layoff notices we sent out? people in limbo, waiting to see how much money we'll get, rainy day funds, any additional state money and i'm uncomfortable with the idea that we're privileging this group of teachers to other teachers who are in limbo. so i'm not sure how to handle that situation. >> but we're not. in reality, these are hard to
fill spots. anybody who is in these positions right now did not get a layoff notice. was not pink slipped or anything. so -- but people retired in these areas. so we do have some vacancies. so -- but you have to be credentialed in those areas. the reason why we're only hiring 10 is we're only hiring people to go into those specific areas. they won't bump anybody else at all. otherwise we wouldn't bring it. i completely agree with you. we told teach for america we would not do that here. so that's why the numbers -- number is so small. we're only filling specific areas where we skipped people anyway because we need math teachers, we need special ed teachers, specific areas like that. >> commissioner men doe czar. -- mendoza. >> are any of these teachers --
are any of these teachers in our six schools? >> yes. >> they are in our schools and we're saying that they did not receive -- >> if they were in skipped areas, math, special ed, bilingual and science, then like all other teachers, they would have been skipped and not gotten layoff notices. a lot of these teachers because they are filling jobs that we have difficulty getting others to take and we have difficulty filling because of the supply, they're in those jobs. >> so i, i want to just make sure that that's who we're bringing in. i'm actually -- i actually support, though, keeping them in our school district. i think that they do serve an
area that we are deficient in. and i mean, i guess the way that i look at t.s.a. -- t.f.a., whatever perception others have, i think it introduces a cohort of people to the teaching profession that would not have come into the teaching profession likely otherwise. and i appreciate that. and not everybody stays. not everybody who comes into it with the intention of being a teacher stays. but i do feel like they do, during their time, in our district, and with our kids, they are committed to them. and i feel like they do stay within the education field and oftentimes their intention wasn't to come into the education field. for somebody who wasn't in the education field previously, i can appreciate that. i do feel like they serve a purpose. i do want to keep the relationship. i think it's a relationship that
-- that is a respectful relationship and that they do, i actually wish we could do more for our teachers what the nonprofit does to support the cohort that comes through. and you know, we need to kind of be thinking about that and maybe even learning some things off of that. but i think it's an investment in a group of teachers willing to go into places and i do feel like they come in with good intentions and really work hard and are committed to our kids and so that's -- i will support the -- having them continue in our district. >> if i could, i'm not advocating at eex--- at the expense of our teachers. the offensive language, i am
very sorry that that, you know, that that's in there. i'm for taking that out as well. but if i just could, part of this resolution, our second year group of teachers that we're committed to and come out of the first resolution. >> thank you. i want to ask you, mr. bushman, we have a contract with teach for america, is that correct? >> yes. >> and when was the contract signed? >> 2008. >> and we are bound to it for how many years? >> it expires the last co-heart -- cohort is going into their second year this coming school year. >> ok. and was that a partnership that was approved by the board of education? >> yes. >> ok, thank you.
>> if these teachers only teach in hard to fill areasing why do we have data about english language arts achievement? >> we have some exceptions. i can list where they're at. go ahead. >> we in the beginning placed them a lot in multiple subject areas in english and social studies and those areas. the years went be, we started really fine tuning it so it would be in the hard to fill subject areas. right before school starts, many times we find out about teachers that are not coming back, they're relocating or whatever. if we still have a t.f.a. person out there, we'll say, do you have an english person? we have placed all our
consolidated teachers, our laid off teachers, there are ince dinses where we have these teachers. but that is absolutely the minority. >> i mean if the whole cohort is 14 people and we've only put them in a multiple subject or teaching english because we're -- how many people is that? two? yet we're doing comparison databased on that. >> we have more than 14 people. >> we've done over the five years we've done 112 t.f.a. teachers. you're right, that's a small sample. >> ok. here's my other question. this is actually our second go-around with teach for america. and the first time, we had a lot of political pressure and i don't think i realy supported it then, although i did some offensive things to me by meeting with people but at that
time their condition of the contract was that they be placed in underperforming schools. we refused to do that. and that was why the relationship ended after two years, i think. as i recall. so i still think that, and one of my issues with that, and this doesn't mean i don't appreciate the dedication of the people who do this, but one of the reasons, one of the other things we found offensive about this program, politically and philosophically speaking, is that its leaders get up and say, we're going to save the urban schools of america by putting teach for america teachers in every low-performing school in a big city and i'm unwilling to support that. and if that's what we're doing, in fact, and in fact, i think that when this was brought to us in 2008, we were told that we weren't going to do that this time either. so i'm not going to support this
and i won't support it anymore unless we -- a lot of things have to change. >> so it sounds like, and i think mr. bushman, that we would normally hear this in the personnel committee and have a lot of discussion back and forth so would it be possible for you to provide us with a report that talks about, because this reminder of these questions seems like we need a reminder report of recent activity or a brief history with teach for america, how many teachers are still with us, sort of what are the subject areas they are teaching in now, you know, over time, maybe they've moved into areas that are not hard to fill. but either way, it seems like
all us board members could use a reminder of their history with sfusd, where they are and where they've been today. that would help, i think, all of us. >> happy to do that. we can talk to ms. norton. >> we have a personnel committee coming up on the seventh. maybe add this to the agenda as a sort of look back, what is our hist -- what has our history been with the program. maybe the memo the commissioner asked for could be sort of gone over at that meeting. maybe that's the thing to do. >> teach for america was not that recent. it came in when our former superintendent brought them in and